Gustavo de Arístegui: Geopolitical Analysis 9 January

Introduction

The world enters 2026 with an explosive mix of ambition and fragility: Washington is trying out a foreign policy of ‘fait accompli’, Moscow is responding with technological and psychological escalations, and the Middle East is experiencing social upheaval that once again calls into question the stability of regimes that have been buying time for decades with repression and propaganda. At the same time, Europe is trying to do something very European: strike deals and uphold rules... while geopolitics tramples over it with military boots and hypersonic missiles.

What is relevant today is not just ‘what has happened’, but the pattern: power politics is back on the table without a napkin, and the law — international and domestic — is becoming a battleground, not a consensus. That is the common thread running through the ten key news items.

Trump in the NYT: power without complexes, international law as ‘optional’ and a world treated as a chessboard

Facts

In an interview published on Thursday, Donald Trump stated that his power would be limited by ‘his own morality’ and went so far as to say that he does not need international law, relativising his obligation to comply with it according to ‘the definition’ of that law. In the same conversation, he insisted on the importance of ‘ownership’ — with his sights set on Greenland — and appeared unconcerned about the imminent expiry of the last arms control treaty with Russia, suggesting that ‘if it expires, it expires’ and that ‘a better deal’ could be made by bringing China on board.

Implications

The phrase is not just a provocation: it is a strategic message. If the US leadership conveys that rules are interpretable and personal morality is the brake, Europe—which thrives on rules, treaties and predictability—is exposed to a double risk: external and internal. Realism without legality is not a ‘firm hand’; it is a blank cheque to the strongest, and Europe has historically always lost when the world is organised in this way.

Russia raises the stakes in Ukraine: massive attack and use of the Oreshnik missile

Facts

Russia claimed to have fired an Oreshnik hypersonic missile at Ukraine for the second time as part of a night-time attack. Moscow presented it as retaliation for an alleged Ukrainian attempt to attack Putin's residence with drones, and said it had struck energy infrastructure and a facility linked to drones. Ukraine confirmed the launch of an Oreshnik from Kapustin Yar and, according to Reuters, a likely target was critical infrastructure in the Lviv region.

Implications

Oreshnik is not just ‘more firepower’: it is a message to Europe. It is an intermediate-range vector with nuclear payload potential and, according to experts cited by Reuters, the capacity to carry multiple ‘warheads’ to strike several targets simultaneously, a feature more typical of longer-range missiles. In political terms, it is an escalation designed to tighten the rope of deterrence: bringing fear closer to NATO's border, increasing the psychological cost of supporting Ukraine, and reminding everyone that Russia can raise the bar when it suits it.

Kyiv under pressure: drones, fires and civilian casualties

Facts

A drone attack on Kyiv left four people dead and at least 19 wounded, with damage to residential buildings, fires in several districts and critical infrastructure affected, including the water network, according to Ukrainian authorities cited by Reuters. Among the victims was an emergency medical worker responding to a previous strike, pointing to a ‘double strike’ tactic that punishes rescue teams.

Implications

Beyond the daily horror, this pursues three objectives: social attrition, erosion of urban morale and saturation of defences. When Russia combines drones, missiles and high-speed weapons, it seeks a simple equation: that every night Ukraine spends expensive resources intercepting cheap means, while the population pays the price in fear, cold and blackouts. For Europe, the lesson is uncomfortable: the front is not only in Donbas; it is in the continental security model, and ‘fatigue’ is as real a weapon as a missile.

Venezuela: US Senate tries to rein in Trump; White House talks of prolonged guardianship

Facts

The US Senate voted to advance a ‘war powers’ resolution aimed at preventing further military action against Venezuela without congressional authorisation, with the support of some Republicans. At the same time, Trump told the NYT that US oversight of Venezuela could last ‘much longer’ than a year and spoke of rebuilding the country ‘in a very profitable way,’ in a context in which Washington controls oil revenues and plans to increase production with corporate participation. Reuters also reported contacts with Colombia and an apparent de-escalation of threats towards Bogotá.

Implications

There are two simultaneous clashes here: institutional and moral. Discussing ‘tutelage’ over Venezuela for years sets a huge precedent: even if the stated goal is to stabilise a failed state and cut off criminal networks, the “how” matters. And if the ‘how’ is perceived as business, not reconstruction, the narrative becomes ammunition for all the anti-Westerners on the planet. For those of us who believe in liberal democracy, the end cannot justify any means: firmness against the Chavista narco-dictatorship must not become a shortcut that erodes the very order we claim to defend.

Venezuela: partial releases, internal uncertainty and five Spaniards return

Facts

Venezuelan authorities announced the release of prisoners as a ‘gesture of peace’, while NGOs and the opposition denounced confusion and lack of clarity about the real scope. Reuters reported the release of five Spanish citizens — including activist Rocío San Miguel — and statements by the Spanish government welcoming the move and calling for the release of the remaining detainees.

Implications

The releases are a political lever, not a purely humanitarian act. In authoritarian regimes, selective releases serve to buy time, divide the opposition and offer ‘gestures’ in exchange for international relief. Europe, and Spain in particular, would do well to celebrate the return of their citizens without falling into naivety: the yardstick must be the freedom of all political prisoners and an end to repression, not an exchange of pieces. And, incidentally, a reminder: Chavismo—although mutated—continues to understand power as control, not as public service.

Greenland: Rubio travels to talk to Denmark; the debate moves from ‘idea’ to “plan”

Facts

Reuters reported that Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, is scheduled to meet with Danish leaders ‘next week’ amid Trump's insistence on exploring an acquisition of Greenland. Denmark has reiterated that Greenland is not for sale, and the very debate about ‘putting a price’ on the territory has become a central issue, with analysis of the unfeasibility of valuing sovereignty as if it were a company.

Implications

Greenland is the stress test for Atlanticism. If the United States treats an ally as if it were a negotiable asset, NATO's cohesion suffers; and if Europe responds only with statements, it loses. To put it bluntly: this is where it is decided whether the transatlantic link is a security community or a simple correlation of forces. And, at the same time, there is no point in feigning surprise: the Arctic is the new strategic chessboard and China is already watching. Europe must have a voice and muscle, not just indignation.

EU-Mercosur: finally, a trade agreement that was almost a legend

Facts

Reuters reported that EU countries expected to approve on Friday the green light to sign the Union's largest free trade agreement with Mercosur, after more than 25 years of negotiations and months of internal haggling to gain key support. At the same time, financial media have described attempts by Brussels to ‘sweeten’ the pact in the face of agricultural resistance, although some of the details are behind closed doors.

Implications

This is economic geopolitics in its purest form: diversification of supply chains, access to markets and a message to the world that Europe can still strike major deals in times of protectionism. If done right, it is a partial vaccine against strategic dependence — including on China — on raw materials and food. If done wrong, it will fuel agrarian populism and the narrative of ‘Brussels against the countryside.’ The challenge is not to sign; it is to sustain the agreement socially, compensate the losers and demand real standards.

Minneapolis: one death, an FBI investigation and a political crisis over immigration

Facts

Following the death of Renee Nicole Good at the hands of an ICE agent in Minneapolis, the FBI took sole leadership of the investigation, leading to the withdrawal of the state agency due to lack of access to evidence and testimony, according to the Guardian and Al Jazeera. The episode sparked protests and a head-on collision between state authorities and the federal administration. The Washington Post also described the political escalation and accusations of blocking local participation.

Implications

Immigration policy is becoming an institutional flashpoint. It is not just about borders: it is about trust in the legitimate use of force and whether the federal state is an arbiter or an interested party. When the official narrative clashes with viral videos, polarisation skyrockets and the country enters a loop: each incident is read as definitive proof of what each side already believed. For the stability of the US — and by extension the West — this kind of internal fracture is a gift to Moscow, Beijing and Tehran.

Vance ‘doubles down’ and the debate turns toxic: security, propaganda and culture war

Facts

In The Guardian's coverage, Vice President J.D. Vance insisted on the thesis that the victim tried to ram the officers and framed her as part of a ‘left-wing network,’ while federal officials defended the action as self-defence. The case itself has been used as immediate political ammunition, with cross-accusations and an increasingly harsh narrative.

Implications

Herein lies a classic risk: when the state turns a case under investigation into an argument for cultural warfare, the principle of institutional prudence is eroded. And, mind you, this is not about ‘do-goodism’: it is about the credibility of the state. A strong government does not need to inflame the atmosphere to enforce the law; it needs results, transparency and proportionality. Otherwise, the ‘iron fist’ degenerates into noise, and noise into misrule.

Iran: serious protests, a crisis of legitimacy and a regime that no longer controls the narrative

Facts

Reuters describes an expansion of protests across Iran's 31 provinces, originating from economic deterioration and spreading to deep political discontent, especially among young people. At least 34 protesters and four members of the security forces were reported dead, in addition to some 2,200 arrests according to HRANA, and an internet blackout. Reuters' diagnosis is clear: a crisis of legitimacy and increasing difficulty for the regime to ‘manage’ the protest-repression-concession cycle as in the past.

Implications

The Tehran regime is not only facing protests: it is facing its own historic failure. For years, it sold ‘resistance’ and the export of revolution while impoverishing its population and financing proxies. Now the street is turning the tables on it. For the West, the red line must be clear: political support for rights and freedoms, maximum pressure on repression, and strategic prudence so as not to fall into military adventures that end up strengthening the regime's victimhood. The fall of a repressive theocracy is not accelerated by slogans, but by isolating the coercive apparatus, supporting civil society and real international coordination.

China and Taiwan: the ‘Venezuela precedent’ fuels fantasies, but the terrain is another planet.

Facts

In a Reuters analysis, some Chinese social media users called for a Venezuela-style ‘lightning capture’ of Taiwanese leaders as a preliminary step to taking the island. Analysts and officials cited by Reuters argue that a ‘decapitation’ operation in Taiwan would be much more difficult: layered air defence, radar, the Taiwan Strait as a natural barrier, and the likelihood of support from the US and its allies. Reuters also highlights doubts about the People's Liberation Army's actual experience in joint operations and electronic warfare, noting that Taiwan has been preparing for such a scenario for years.

Implications

This piece is gold for Beijing to read: the desire exists, the capability is not yet guaranteed, and the risk of escalation would be extreme. For Atlanticists, the message is twofold: one, strengthening deterrence in the Indo-Pacific is an investment in peace; two, the ‘precedent’ of rapid interventions fuels imitations. If Washington normalises the idea of ‘capturing’ leaders of other countries as a shortcut, it not only strikes a blow to international law: it offers China a narrative justification for trying the same thing. And China, unlike Maduro, is not an ‘isolated’ target: it is a systemic competitor.

Media Rack

United States (NYT / Washington Post / Fox News / Reuters).

• The NYT focuses on a presidency understood as a force, with Trump himself relativising international law and elevating ‘personal morality’ as a limit.
• The Washington Post reads Minneapolis as a clash of internal sovereignties and a crisis of confidence in the use of force.
• Fox News aligns itself with the framework of ‘prolonged involvement’ in Venezuela and reinforces the narrative of firmness.
• Reuters, as an agency, provides the factual backbone: Senate, Venezuela, Rubio, Mercosur, Iran, Oreshnik.

United Kingdom (The Guardian).

• The Guardian highlights the normative cost: ‘I don't need international law’ not as a boutade, but as a symptom of a drift of power that unsettles allies and fuels internal crises.
• In Ukraine, its emphasis is on the escalation and immediate European impact, connecting missiles and NATO borders.

Agencies (AP / Reuters).

• AP adds operational granularity about the Russian attack and the reading of the threat to European security.
• Reuters keeps up the daily pulse with a clear pattern: US foreign policy becomes a ‘model’ for allies and adversaries, and that realigns debates in Taiwan, Europe and the Middle East.

Arab world (Al Jazeera).

• Al Jazeera frames Minneapolis as a controversy over rights and jurisdiction, highlighting the FBI's exclusive control and the conflict with Minnesota.

Russia (TASS).

• TASS reproduces the Kremlin's framing: ‘justified’ retaliation, objectives achieved and legitimisation of the use of Oreshnik in response to an alleged Ukrainian attack. It is textbook propaganda: inverted causality, victimhood and ‘mission accomplished’.
• Europe (FT track).
• The Financial Times points to internal European tension over Mercosur and makes it clear that the agreement is not just about economics: it is about European domestic politics in a state of alarm.

Editorial commentary

The scene of the day is disturbing for one simple reason: a language of power that sounds more like the 19th century than the 21st century is becoming normalised. When the US president says that his limit is ‘his morals’ and that international law depends on definitions, he is not being ‘authentic’: he is weakening the only real shield of medium-sized countries — including Europe — against the giants. And no, this is not a naive argument.

Anyone who has seen what Russia is doing in Ukraine, anyone who knows the Ayatollahs' machinery of terror, anyone who has suffered the cynicism of Chavista kleptocracy, understands that rules are not a flower in one's lapel: they are the load-bearing wall of liberal civilisation.

That said, it should also be made clear that narco-dictatorships and theocracies cannot be fought with moral relativism or the empty rhetoric of radical progressivism. They are fought with the state, with alliances, with intelligence, with effective sanctions and with an unapologetic defence of freedom. What cannot be done is to fall into the trap of imitating autocrats ‘because they work’. They do not work: they leave ruins in their wake. The West's firmness must be firmness with rules; otherwise, we are not defending anything: we are just changing masters.